The Middle East

Israel's election

The hawks’ wings are clipped

YAIR LAPID, a former television talk-show host whose secular, middle-of-the-road party soared into second place in Israel’s election on January 22nd, wrote a popular column for years in the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, in which he would ask, “What is it to be Israeli?” What, in other words, does it take to feel you belong in the Jewish state? The question became his trademark. Now a large chunk of the electorate—a lot larger than the pollsters predicted—has given an answer that may reshape Israel’s future, not least by improving the chance of a durable peace with the Palestinians.

Mr Lapid’s party, Yesh Atid (There is a Future), running for the first time, got 19 seats in the 120-seat parliament, against 31 for Likud-Beitenu, led by the incumbent prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who is still expected to retain his post. But he will find it much harder in the next month or so to rejig his ruling coalition. Hawkish and religious parties that have been generally loth to offer the sort of territorial and other compromises needed to revive the peace process got half the seats. But the election result shows that Israelis on the more malleable middle ground are still a force to be reckoned with. The post-election bargaining will be a lot trickier than Mr Netanyahu expected.

Two key consequences may ensue. One is that Naftali Bennett, the religious hawk who rejects the idea of Palestinian state altogether, may not have to be brought into a government. Pollsters had expected his new party to do so well that Mr Netanyahu would have had to give him a senior post.

The other is that it may prove impossible for Mr Netanyahu to include both Mr Lapid’s secular party and other religious parties in a ruling coalition. They are at loggerheads with each other, among other things over the issue of whether Ultra-Orthodox men should have to serve in the armed forces. If Mr Netanyahu found it impossible to include Mr Bennett and the religious parties in a coalition, he might have to bring in not just Mr Lapid but the likes of Tzipi Livni, a former foreign minister whose new party’s main policy is to cut a deal with the Palestinians; she got six seats. Shelly Yachimovich, whose Labour party came third with 15 seats, has promised not to join any government led by Mr Netanyahu.

The election result proclaims that “being Israeli” does not mean you have to share the nationalist-religious zeitgeist that has swept through Israel in recent years and seemed to be propelling Mr Bennett and his Yisrael Beitenu (Jewish Home) party into a position of influence and perhaps even power.

For much of the campaign, Mr Bennett made the running, setting the agenda, declaring his unswerving rejection of the two-state solution, and pulling the whole of Mr Netanyahu’s “national camp” ever further to the right. A former high-tech magnate, Mr Bennett appeared to attract voters from beyond his core constituency of religious Israelis who have settled on the West Bank, the main bit of a would-be Palestinian state. Young people, not necessarily religious or settlers, seemed to admire the brash bluntness of his message coupled with his success as a businessman.

Mr Bennett had taken over and thoroughly revamped the venerable National Religious Party, which had shrunk to three seats in the outgoing parliament. He also co-opted members of the fading National Union, even further to the right, into his Jewish Home. Pollsters thought Mr Bennett’s newfangled outfit would get as many as15 seats. In the event, it got 11—still a good score, but not what he had hoped for.

Indeed, the Bennett phenomenon may have prompted a backlash. Those same young, yuppy voters may have begun to feel uncomfortable with the harsh vision of endless occupation that Mr Bennett presented. Perhaps Barack Obama’s leaked comments earlier this month that Mr Netanyahu’s policies towards the Palestinians were undermining Israel’s own interests, caused middle-class Israeli voters to stop and think. Hence, perhaps, the surge for Mr Lapid at the expense of Mr Bennett. The parties of the national camp—Likud-Beitenu, Mr Bennett’s lot, and the two main ultra-Orthodox parties— together have exactly 60 of parliament’s 120 seats. So Mr Netanyahu is just short of a majority for a rightist-religious coalition. Mr Lapid is the new kingmaker.

Despite his winning score, Mr Netanyahu has taken a knock. His Likud-Beitenu’s tally of 31 seats is 11 fewer than the previous combined parliamentary strength of the two parties in his ruling coalition, Likud and Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu, which teamed up on a joint list just before the election. The ether around MrNetanyahu is already thick with recriminations over they way he ran his campaign.

More important for the future of Israel, however, is the prospect that he may, if he is to embrace Mr Lapid and perhaps other parties in the more peace-minded centre, have to grapple more seriously with the Palestinian issue. If the hawks led by Mr Netanyahu and backed by Messrs Bennett and Lieberman had won an outright majority, they might well have hunkered down together, turning a deaf ear to pleas from Mr Obama and others to re-engage with the Palestinians. Now Mr Netanyahu may have to think again.

I am curious if any of the Israeli parties or their platforms even mentioned their commitment to the US like US politicians are challenged about commitment to Israel when running for office. Chuck Hagel is correct in musing that the US Congress is an Israeli occupied territory.

You have no respect for international law - that is understandable because you violate all concepts of decency and propriety.

Partition of India involved an exchange of populations within the same area of about 4% of the population - nobody arrived from 5,000 kilometers away!!! In Bangladesh, there was no exchange of population at all!!! So much about your understanding of history!!! Zionism was based on eviction - the polite term was self determination. The whole basis on which the Zionists wanted to create Israel was based on "self determination". Self determination is a right of a people who inhabit a territory (e.g., the Palestinians) - this right cannot be transplanted across 5,000 kilometers. For example, if the people of northern Thailand want to exercise the right of self determination, they cannot seek territory in France!!! Likewise, if the people of northern Spain want to exercise the right of self determination, they cannot decide that they want 50% of all the good land in Scotland!!! Kindly read a few concepts before you make ridiculous statements.

Self determination is a right to be exercised by people who actually live on a territory - you cannot exercise the right to self determination sitting in Germany, Russia, or Latvia. Self determination is defined in any good dictionary as "the determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status". Therefore, ipso facto, this right (i.e., self determination) can only be exercised by people who actually live in a certain place. For example, there are liberation/"self determination" movements in Tibet (where Tibetans actually live), in Kashmir (where Kashmiri people live), in Scotland (surprise, surprise - Scots actually live there), etc., etc. Zionism is an absurd attempt to grab land from people in Asia just because the Europeans were very nasty to the Jews. Total nonsense - in historical terms. People living in Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Germany, cannot suddenly decide to arrive in another place, grab land from people living there and call it "self determination". Never in recent history has oppression and imposition of apartheid been labeled as a movement or as a right (of self determination)!!!

It is very difficult to have a rational discussion with somebody who thinks that the right of self determination can be exercised from Europe into a territory in Asia (a distance of several thousand miles) after the lapse of 20 centuries - i.e., the right of international transplant surgery!!! Give me any historical precedent where this has ever happened before in recent history!!! Kindly analyze your own words and find any similar situation of geographical transplant surgery in recent history!!! Then we can have a conversation. Think about it - if Muslims are having a problem in India, then they should be given all of Uzbekistan!!! If Catholics are having a problem in Cuba, then give them land in Italy!!! If whites are having a problem in South Africa, then hand over 60% of Holland to them!!! Think about the implications for the chaos in global politics if territorial transplant surgery is performed on the same basis as Israel!!!

The reality is that the Romans kicked you out in 70 AD. Then for two thousand years the Jewish tribes went all of the world, inter-married, failed to make friends, did a lot of trade and money-lending, failed to integrate with any society, became universally hated, and then made a business deal with the West - i.e., give us Palestine and we will be your "agents" in the Middle East. In the meantime, generations of people actually lived in Palestine - they had "to be removed" (Ben Gurion). The only problem was that the early Zionists were plotting and planning using "tools of ethnic cleansing" which were perfectly acceptable in the 17th (and 18th) century - but, were no longer acceptable in the 21st century. Therefore, you are welcome should adjust to the 21st century. This is a secular century. Nobody believes what Moses said - even the existence of God is being questioned. You want to leave Europe and live in Asia, then do so with the humility of a guest - and not the arrogance of a colonial conqueror!!! Your own holy books (the OT and the Torah) are full of genocide, gruesome murders, rape, incest, ethnic cleansing and dozens of racist murders. What was the consequence?? Eviction from Palestine was the result. Do you want history to repeat itself?? Try and understand why the Jews have been thrown out by every single nation on the planet. Try and understand what has caused the "chosen people" to be the most hated people on the plant. There has to be a reason.

Nudnik, your racism is even worse than the Germans of the 4rd Reich - you are incorrigible. In Evian, your beloved "Western Democracies", basically said f--k off, but you still try and justify it, and continue to blame Muslims, who never harmed you - and yet, you have occupied their homes and villages - and justify it. Do they teach history in your country??

Regarding WW2, most 3rd parties were hedging their bets, including some Arabs and the Jews. The reality is that the Zionists were having an active dialogue with the Nazi party in Germany. Please read THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT: THE DRAMATIC STORY OF THE PACT BETWEEN THE THIRD REICH AND JEWISH PALESTINE. On August 7, 1933, leaders of the Zionist movement concluded a secret and controversial pact with the Third Reich which in its various forms transferred some 60,000 Jews and $100 million to Jewish Palestine.

The Zionists tried very hard to make a deal with the Germans to stab the Brits in the back in Asia. All the letters written by the Zionist leaders to Nazi Germany can be seen in the archives of the Nuremberg trials. These documents comprise 8 volumes of correspondence between the Zionists and the Third Reich. The poor British were bending over backwards to help the Zionists, who were busy stabbing the British in the back.

"In early January 1941 a small but important Jewish organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel", better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist "National Military Organization" (Irgun Zvai Leumi - Etzel) over the group's attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism.

This remarkable proposal "for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation on the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany" is worth quoting at some length:

"The NMO which is very familiar with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program takes the view that:

Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO.
Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry.
The establishment of the Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty, with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

"On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.

"This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the "Jewish" men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front be formed.

"The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European-Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

"The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England".

(Original document in German Auswertiges Amt Archiv, Bestand 47-59, E224152 and E234155-58.
Complete original text published in: David Yisraeli, The Palestinian Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1947) pp. 315-317).

You are getting your concepts mixed up. There was some population exchange as a result of the defeat of Nazi Germany - these were unplanned consequences of Germany's role reversal. Likewise, the decision of the UK to leave India was primarily prompted by its diminished economic circumstances post-WW2. In the case of Zionism, it was a planned ethnic cleansing. Read Israeli historian Ilan Pappe’s book "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", which makes painstakingly and painfully clear the extent to which the expulsion of the great majority of Palestinians from their homes and homeland between 1947 and 1949 (an expulsion absolutely essential to create a "Jewish state" in a country where, in 1947, the population was still 70% Muslim and Christian and these non-Jews still owned 94% of the land) was meticulously planned, programmed and documented, ruthlessly carried out and, thereafter, efficiently covered up, sanitized, erased from minds and memories and, to the extent necessary, denied. Pappe also makes clear that the cleansing spirit and cleansing practices have continued ever since.

You state that Zionism is based on the right of return. The right of return cannot be exercised after 20 centuries, as I have pointed out to you earlier. The fact is that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was planned by the Zionist leadership as far back as the 19th century. The "promised land" was their objective - using verses from texts written 30 centuries ago. It is always a bad idea to base any constitution or charter on quotes from ancient texts whose mystery author (i.e., God) has never been seen - no other community in history has used God as a property agent, allowing God to perform land transfers!!! Furthermore, it is more important to read the pronouncements of the actual "policy makers" in recent history. In this context, here are a few quotes from key members of the Zionist movement:

"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." - T. Herzl, 1885.

In any case, the Jews who left Palestine 20 centuries ago ceased to exist - they were either killed or forced to convert to Christianity. The Zionists are an invented people - "How the Jewish people were invented, from the Bible to Zionism is the provocative title of a book by Shlomo Sand, a professor at Tel Aviv University. Sand, attacks what he calls the myth that the Jews are the descendants of the Hebrews, exiled from the kingdom of Judaea. He has attempted to show that the Jews are neither a race nor a nation, but ancient pagans – in the main Berbers from North Africa, Arabs from the south of Arabia, and Turks from the Khazar empire – who converted to Judaism between the fourth and eighth centuries CE. According to Sand, the Palestinians are probably descended from Hebrews who embraced Islam or Christianity." So the Jews are actually slaughtering their own ancestors!!! Not very nice.

In their book The Bible Unearthed, two eminent archaeologists, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman have shown that many of the facts mentioned in the Bible are fictitious. Basing a whole nation on a dicey book written by a chap who has disappeared does not seem to be a good game plan!!! Ethnic cleansing based on a faulty document - not very wise!!!

History is not measured in years, and even decades - and history repeats itself. Arrogance, racism and an inability to integrate with local people led to "temple had been rebuilt three times. The first was when it had been destroyed in 587 BC by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylonia. The second was when it had been plundered and wrecked by Judaea’s foreign rulers. The third time, it had been rebuilt by Herod the Great in 20 BC." - and destroyed 3 times!!!
The CIA has predicted in a widely circulated secret report that Israel as a Zionist entity will cease to exist in a decade. In another report (by the EU), it is reported that over 2 million Israeli's (a huge percentage of the population) has applied for foreign passports since 2002. "It is obvious that soon Zionism will enter into Trotsky’s “ashcan” of history along with every other nationalistic “ism” that has plagued humankind during the twentieth century: Nazism, Fascism, Francoism, Phalangism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc." Like all disasters in history this can be avoided - i.e., by negotiating with the Palestinians as equals - and not like a victorious colonial power - it is the wrong century. "This is not a natural disaster that cannot be predicted or avoided. This is human folly maintained for most of the time by cynical financial interests and fanatical religious and national ideologies. Moreover, a wider historical perspective tells us that when peace is not achieved because such policies persist, the end result is often the destruction of everyone involved: victims and victimizers, oppressed and oppressors, occupied and occupiers. They and their supporters are all swallowed up in a perpetual wave of violence and devastation" - Ilan Pappe.
The recent vote in the UN proved that well over 95% of global population voted in favor of the Palestinian resolution. As usual, the USA was Israel's only supporter. "Israel must withdraw all settlers from the West Bank or potentially face a case at the international criminal court (ICC) for serious violations of international law" said the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) 2 days ago. Israel, it said, was in violation of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention, which forbids the transfer of civilian populations to occupied territory".
All empires have an expiry date, and the USA is a declining world power. "the US National Intelligence Council admitted that America's global power was indeed on a declining trajectory. In one of its periodic futuristic reports, Global Trends 2025, the Council cited “the transfer of global wealth and economic power now under way, roughly from West to East" and "without precedent in modern history,” as the primary factor in the decline of the “United States' relative strength—even in the military realm.” Like many in Washington, however, the Council’s analysts anticipated a very long, very soft landing for American global preeminence, and harbored the hope that somehow the US would long “retain unique military capabilities… to project military power globally” for decades to come.
No such luck. Under current projections, the United States will find itself in second place behind China (already the world's second largest economy) in economic output around 2026, and behind India by 2050. Similarly, Chinese innovation is on a trajectory toward world leadership in applied science and military technology sometime between 2020 and 2030, just as America's current supply of brilliant scientists and engineers retires, without adequate replacement by an ill-educated younger generation.
By 2020, according to current plans, the Pentagon will throw a military Hail Mary pass for a dying empire. It will launch a lethal triple canopy of advanced aerospace robotics that represents Washington's last best hope of retaining global power despite its waning economic influence. By that year, however, China's global network of communications satellites, backed by the world's most powerful supercomputers, will also be fully operational, providing Beijing with an independent platform for the weaponization of space and a powerful communications system for missile- or cyber-strikes into every quadrant of the globe."
Israel will need to become an acceptable neighbor to Asian super-powers (i.e., Russia, China, India, Japan) and to regional powers like Turkey. The USA will leave Asia and pursue its own agenda - hence, its support will not be permanent. "At the same time, the world balance of power is also changing. New powers are rising, old powers are gradually losing their clout. This will not be a one-time, dramatic occurrence, but a slow and steady process. That is how history is moving. Anyone who places himself on the wrong side of it will pay the price" - Uri Avnery (Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom).
Here in London, there is a popular joke. Officer at Heathrow airport asks a visiting Israeli: "Your occupation, sir". The Israeli replies: "No, occupation - just visiting".

It has always bemused me why democracies are deemed intrinsically better than the alternatives and should therefore be given added slack. One is minded of Blair’s maxim that a democracy has never started a war – as if a people voting democratically can never vote for aggression in pursuit of narrow, fascistic interests.

Such thinking exposes the narcissism of the West.

Rather the maxim should be: ‘By their fruits shall ye know them’. And in the case of the Israelis that fruit is particularly rotten and bitter. Indeed when democracies vote for illegal occupation their culpability is doubled for they do it knowing what they do. The populace in a dictatorship does not have the choice.

Noted - very valid points. The Americans performed well in WW2 primarily because in conventional warfare classical battlefield tactics are deployed. In the 1940's, the USA's share of global GDP was twice of what it is now. Therefore, they were able to deploy tremendous resources against an enemy (i.e., Germany) that was being badly battered by the Russians. Post-WW2, begins the era of asymmetrical warfare, which requires brains more than brawn. Also "moral concepts" have a huge impact on the psychology of the troops. From Korea and Vietnam onwards, the ability of the US leadership to "invent a rationale" has been declining, primarily because most of these wars were about nebulous concepts like "containment" and "the domino theory" which the troops do not understand and/or about actual lies and false statements like "Iraq's WMD" and "Iran's nuclear weapons" which the whole world does not believe. Here is what I wrote in TE 2 weeks ago about Vietnam's Gen. Giap - the only general in history who has defeated 2 super-powers:

"Giap closely followed the teachings of Mao in planning a three-stage struggle—first “localised guerrilla war”, then “war of movement” and finally “general uprising”—which he waged with a three-tier force of village militias, full-time guerrillas and a regular army. But where Mao was always cautious to avoid confrontations with more powerful forces, Giap’s tendency to “roll the dice on premature offensives” in 1951, 1968 and again in 1972 could have proved fatal each time had it not been for the psychological and political frailties of the other side. In guerrilla warfare, what matters most is the ability to shape the story, not the facts on the ground. This is how guerrillas are able to win wars even as they lose battles" - the reviewer's comments on Gen. Giap of Vietnam.

While both Mao and Giap had superb tactical skills, the book appears to be somewhat critical about Giap in terms "premature offensives". I believe that Mao had the luxury of time - the enemy was local, had limited resources (in terms of cash and military supplies) and a psychological structure that was easy to read. Giap is the only general in recent history to have defeated 2 super-powers in his career. Particularly in the case of the USA, he was dealing with a situation where the "enemy" had unlimited resources and had a very low moral threshold in terms of battlefield ethics (e.g., indiscriminate use of chemical weapons, very low regard for "collateral damage", etc.). Giap had to launch his offensives at a very rapid pace in order to capitalize on the only known weakness that the USA had, which was low morale caused by a lack of clarity about war aims. Therefore, Giap has to be commended for 2 victories:
1. Winning the war - that is fairly obvious; and
2. Causing semi-permanent damage to the enemy's self-confidence. The post-Vietnam US military is a very under-confident fighting force. Even now - decades later."

It is amazing how much morality impacts the fighting ability of troops. There are a few exceptions - e.g., Israel's IDF which actually believes in the OT and the Torah. Consequently, for the IDF, senseless killings of Palestinian people does not become a moral issue - they go on believing that they are carrying on the mission of Abraham, Moses, King David, Joshua, etc. The IDF sees themselves as the natural successors to those blood-thirsty "prophets":

"Joshua proceeds to utterly destroy the kingdoms of Lachish, Makkedah, the Gibeonites, the Libnahites, the Eglonites, the Hebronites and the Debirites. The five main kings were captured and Joshua had his men place their "feet" (genitals?) on the necks of these kings. Afterwards he killed the kings and hung their bodies in trees for all to see. The fact that his men putting their "feet" on the necks of the kings hadn't already killed them strengthens the theory that it was their genitals which the Israelites placed on the necks of the kings as an insult. The kings of the other cities were killed and laid on the ruins of their cities just like the king of Jericho. The Bible sums up all the horrifying bloodshed by saying, "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded." - Joshua 10:27-40.

These invasions happened in earlier history - several centuries ago. The world (and international law) has evolved since then, particularly in the post-colonial era - starting from the end of WW2. In the context of contemporary history, the forced settlement of overseas people through military force has only been done by Israel - although Stalin did similar things prior to WW2. Contemporary international law and semantics refers to these forced evictions as ethnic cleansing. In Biblical times, such actions were quite normal - however, globally they are now viewed as abhorrent, uncivilized, primitive, barbaric and illegal.

The whole basis on which the Zionists wanted to create Israel was based on "self determination. Self determination is a right of a people who inhabit a territory (e.g., the Palestinians) - this right cannot be transplanted across 5,000 kilometers. For example, if the people of northern Thailand want to exercise the right of self determination, they cannot seek territory in France!!! Likewise, if the people of northern Spain want to exercise the right of self determination, they cannot decide that they want 50% of all the good land in Scotland!!! Kindly read a few concepts before you make ridiculous statements.

Self determination is a right to be exercised by people who actually live on a territory - you cannot exercise the right to self determination sitting in Germany, Russia, or Latvia. Self determination is defined in any good dictionary as "the determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status". Therefore, ipso facto, this right (i.e., self determination) can only be exercised by people who actually live in a certain place. For example, there are liberation/"self determination" movements in Tibet (where Tibetans actually live), in Kashmir (where Kashmiri people live), in Scotland (surprise, surprise - Scots actually live there), etc., etc. Zionism is an absurd attempt to grab land from people in Asia just because the Europeans were very nasty to the Jews. Total nonsense - in historical terms. People living in Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Germany, cannot suddenly decide to arrive in another place, grab land from people living there and call it "self determination". Never in recent history has oppression and imposition of apartheid been labeled as a movement or as a right (of self determination)!!!

It is very difficult to have a rational discussion with somebody who thinks that the right of self determination can be exercised from Europe into a territory in Asia (a distance of several thousand miles) after the lapse of 20 centuries - i.e., the right of international transplant surgery!!! Give me any historical precedent where this has ever happened before in recent history!!! Kindly analyze your own words and find any similar situation of geographical transplant surgery in recent history!!! Then we can have a conversation. Think about it - if Muslims are having a problem in India, then they should be given all of Uzbekistan!!! If Catholics are having a problem in Cuba, then give them land in Italy!!! If whites are having a problem in South Africa, then hand over 60% of Holland to them!!! Think about the implications for the chaos in global politics if territorial transplant surgery is performed on the same basis as Israel!!!

The reality is that the Romans kicked you out in 70 AD. Then for two thousand years the Jewish tribes went all of the world, inter-married, failed to make friends, did a lot of trade and money-lending, failed to integrate with any society, became universally hated, and then made a business deal with the West - i.e., give us Palestine and we will be your "agents" in the Middle East. In the meantime, generations of people actually lived in Palestine - they had "to be removed" (Ben Gurion). The only problem was that the early Zionists were plotting and planning using "tools of ethnic cleansing" which were perfectly acceptable in the 17th (and 18th) century - but, were no longer acceptable in the 21st century. Therefore, you are welcome should adjust to the 21st century. This is a secular century. Nobody believes what Moses said - even the existence of God is being questioned. You want to leave Europe and live in Asia, then do so with the humility of a guest - and not the arrogance of a colonial conqueror!!! Your own holy books (the OT and the Torah) are full of genocide, gruesome murders, rape, incest, ethnic cleansing and dozens of racist murders. What was the consequence?? Eviction from Palestine was the result. Do you want history to repeat itself?? Try and understand why the Jews have been thrown out by every single nation on the planet. Try and understand what has caused the "chosen people" to be the most hated people on the plant. There has to be a reason. If you have an explanation, please share it with the readers of TE.

I would like to thank the 12 people who recommended my comments - because, without them, you would not have replied. Please note that "the writing of few people in the 30's and 40's of last century" are relevant because these were the writings of the founders of Zionism. This was their road map - occupy through ethnic cleansing. On the terrorist attacks - yes, they exist. The issue is simple - when Zionist ideas were formulated, the world was still in the colonial era. The Zionist founders felt that if the Spanish could conduct ethnic cleansing in South America, and the British could do it in North America, and the Nazis could do it in Eastern Europe, then surely the Jews should be able to do ethnic cleansing in Asia. They were right, in theory - except that the world changed in the middle of the last century. Colonialism ended, and the new world order based on international law and secular principles began to emerge. Therefore, instead of lying down on the ground for Lehi, Irgun and the IDF to kill an entire nation, the people of Palestine decided to resist the occupation. Within Israel itself there are major demographic changes which have made it a more right-wing country. For example, according to the CIA "as many as 650,000 people—most of them Jews—left the country until 2005, and the figure may be considerably higher. The topic is very controversial in Israel because all Jews are supposed to come there, and its implicit they will stay. They clearly are not coming, or staying. Israel is the Zionist goal but most Jews live elsewhere, and they support Zionism mainly with their money and political influence". According to the CIA, 2 million Israeli's either have or have applied for foreign passports. In the meantime, the ultra-right who are "in essence, a Jewish Taliban who are intolerant of other life-styles as well as essentially being zealots. Eventually, since these ultra-orthodox have very large families— Ashkenazi (European but mainly Eastern Europe) Haredi had a total fertility rate of 8.5 in 1996, up from 6.9 in 1980. The men have had draft exemptions until now, have a high rate of unemployment, study the Talmud, and have babies. They will take over, become the largest sector of the Jewish population, and make life increasingly miserable for the more secular Jews." - Gabreil Kolko. Therefore, the secular Jews are leaving (or have already left) and the population of the Jewish Taliban is growing.

If you are from Israel, then instead of constantly harping about the Muslims (who have historically been your friends) and praising the West (where you were treated to showers and baths - with gas) you should outline your thoughts about the future (unless you have a foreign passport and have already left Israel). What are your views on the West Bank settlements?? On Iran?? Do you support a one state or a 2-state solution?? There are many left-wing secular Jews who are trying to reverse the damage that Likud has done. Do you support them?? Or are you one of those who feel that God (the great real estate agent in the sky) has given you title deeds to more stolen land!!! What is your truthful position on these issues??

You keep talking about very minor issues, and insist on a response. I have asked you several very long-term issues, which you have ignored. I will repeat them again:

During the past 20 centuries (or more), Jews have been killed (in very large numbers) in nearly every single large Christan country - e.g., Spain, France, Russia, Germany, etc. This is a documented fact - in Jewish history books. In the centuries mentioned above, was there any large-scale killing of Jews in Muslim countries?? The answer is "no" - again from documented Jewish archives and books. Related fact - during and after the Spanish inquisition, most of the Jews fled to Muslim countries - particularly to Turkey and Morocco. That again is a fact. Related fact - Hitler very publicly announced that the Jews are not welcome in Germany. He stated that they were welcome to leave Germany. Again this is a fact. In July 1938, a conference was convened in Evian, France to decide what to do about this issue - i.e., Hitler's treats and his offer of safe passage to German Jews. "I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [Jews], will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships" - Hitler, 1938. Hitler made several similar offers. Then what happened at the Evian Conference - the Christian world refused to take the Jews!!! "With both the United States and Britain refusing to take in substantial numbers of Jews, the conference was ultimately seen as a failure by Jews and their sympathizers. Most of the countries at the conference followed suit, the result being that the Jews had no escape and were ultimately subject to what was known as Hitler's "Final Solution to the Jewish Question". The conference was seen by some as "an exercise in Anglo-American collaborative hypocrisy." This is a documented fact. Reading these facts carefully leads to several related questions, as follows:-
- Why do all the comments coming from Jewish writers always have words of hate and violence against Muslims??
- In spite of being thrown out (and killed) in Christian countries, why do all the comments coming from Jewish writers express a love for Christians??
- Is there something inherently flawed about the Jews that everybody (historically speaking) seems to hate them??
- Did the Jews do anything (in various European countries) that caused hatred amongst even highly literate and sophisticated people across a whole continent?? For centuries??
- Hatred for Muslims - Is this a perverse mutation of the Stockholm syndrome?? Love of the oppressor!! Hate the down-trodden!!
- Hatred for the Muslims - Is this a perverse mutation of the Shylock syndrome?? Love of money above everything else!! Love for people (and countries) who have money!! Read European literature (from the 12th century onwards), including Shakespeare. It is full of these Jewish traits/habits - i.e., cunning, scheming, greed, lack of loyalty, etc.
- Other than the J Street movement, very few Jews can read (or comment about) history impartially. Why??
- Why are liberal Jews unable to make any difference to internal (right-wing) politics within Israel??
- Is it because the liberal Jews have decided to leave Israel and live in North America, Europe, etc.??
Your comments are welcome - but, please do not respond by giving quotations from ancient books - e.g., "promised land", "chosen people", etc. These statements cannot be verified as they are attributed to a gentleman (i.e., God) whose very existence is currently being debated. Thank you.

The Jews are "house guests" - the assessment bernardpalmer is absolutely correct. The reality is that the Romans kicked you out in 70 AD. Then for two thousand years the Jewish tribes went all of the world, inter-married, failed to make friends, did a lot of trade and money-lending, failed to integrate with any society, became universally hated, and then made a business deal with the West - i.e., give us Palestine and we will be your "agents" in the Middle East. In the meantime, generations of people actually lived in Palestine - they had "to be removed" (Ben Gurion). The only problem was that the early Zionists were plotting and planning using "tools of ethnic cleansing" which were perfectly acceptable in the 17th (and 18th) century - but, were no longer acceptable in the 21st century. Therefore, you are welcome should adjust to the 21st century. This is a secular century. Nobody believes what Moses said - even the existence of God is being questioned. You want to leave Europe and live in Asia, then do so with the humility of a guest - and not the arrogance of a colonial conqueror!!! Your own holy books (the OT and the Torah) are full of genocide, gruesome murders, rape, incest, ethnic cleansing and dozens of racist murders. What was the consequence?? Eviction from Palestine was the result. Do you want history to repeat itself?? Try and understand why the Jews have been thrown out by every single nation on the planet. Try and understand what has caused the "chosen people" to be the most hated people on the planet.

"the daily prayers of Judaism call for the return to the land of Israel and have for thousands of years. Divining the will of G-d is not something most Jews take as lightly as you appear to" - you comment. Btw, spelling mistake - in English, God is spelled as God and not as G-d. The issue is that no other religion has ever treated God like a real estate agent. If if he exists, God does not give legal rights to bestow land, to transfer territories, to perform ethnic cleansing, and to evict people to allow more settlements to be made. All these acts (and crimes) are committed by human beings. Why bring God into this?? Even if he exists, God has never been used for earthly jobs like real estate transfers. Why have you given him such a role?? Just because he cannot be brought to earth and explain why crimes are being committed in his name?? A great solution - throw out several million people, occupy their land, build on it - when anybody asks any questions just send the bailiff off to outer space and ask him to have a chat with God!!!!!

Alanadale made an interesting comment - "in Biblical times Jews had an unfortunate propensity to overreach themselves and to that extent were agents of their own misfortune" - his comments. The religious scriptures are full of these examples. "Moses responds to God's anger by ordering his army to kill the five kingdoms of Midianites. These were the same people that had welcomed Moses with open arms when he originally fled from Egypt after murdering an Egyptian. They even allowed him to marry one of their women. We now see how Moses repays their kindness: his army kills all the men and captures their women and children. When Moses sees the thousands of captives, he gets angry because it was the Midianite women which caused the Israelite men to stray from God's commandments in the first place. Moses says to his soldiers, "Have you kept the women alive? They are the reason God sent that plague to kill 24,000 of us." He then commanded his army to kill all the boy children and all the women who were not virgins. The Bible doesn't tell us how they determined who was a virgin but we can imagine it was a humane and caring exam based on the past record of God's people. The Israelites then kept all the virgin girls for themselves, dividing them up along with the livestock - Numbers 31.

"Joshua proceeds to utterly destroy the kingdoms of Lachish, Makkedah, the Gibeonites, the Libnahites, the Eglonites, the Hebronites and the Debirites. The five main kings were captured and Joshua had his men place their "feet" (genitals?) on the necks of these kings. Afterwards he killed the kings and hung their bodies in trees for all to see. The fact that his men putting their "feet" on the necks of the kings hadn't already killed them strengthens the theory that it was their genitals which the Israelites placed on the necks of the kings as an insult. The kings of the other cities were killed and laid on the ruins of their cities just like the king of Jericho. The Bible sums up all the horrifying bloodshed by saying, "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded." - Joshua 10:27-40.

"While spying for more lands to invade, the Israelite tribe of Dan finds a peaceful city of pagans who are quietly keeping to themselves. The men of God descend upon the unsuspecting people of the city and kill them with the sword. Then they burned the pagan city - Judges 18:27-29.

"Once David becomes king, the Amalekites invade his kingdom. Unlike the bloody conquests of the Israelites, the "heathen" Amalekites burn the captured city but they don't kill anyone, "great or small." David pursues them and slays the Amalekites while they are camping. None of the captured Israelites had been harmed by the Amalekites, in contrast to the bloodbath the Israelites had been conducting against the Amalekites. The true morality of the godly versus the ungodly is revealed once more - 1 Samuel 30:1-19.

"One of God's chosen people killed the king of Israel and sat on the throne only to be replaced by another who killed him, then another killed that one. This king of God's chosen people went to a city and killed everyone in it. He also took the pregnant women and "ripped them up." - 2 Kings 15:16.

"When the tribe of Benjamin was nearly exterminated, the leaders of Israel had decreed that they wouldn't allow any of their women to marry the men of the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 21:1). Without women, the tribe was doomed to become extinct, so the leaders of Israel came up with a plan to get wives for the Benjamites (Judges 21:2-4). They called for a council meeting but didn't send out an invitation to one of the minor tribes. When there were no representatives from that tribe present at the council meeting (Judges 21:5-9), the leaders declared that the minor tribe that hadn't shown up would have all of its people that weren't virgin women of marrying age, slayed (Judges 21:10-11). The surviving women would then be given to the men of the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 21:12-13). After the virgin women of the minor tribe were redistributed to the Benjamites, it was discovered that there were still not enough women to keep the Benjamites viable as a tribe (Judges 21:14). The leaders then decided that it would be best for the Benjamites to go to a festival and simply kidnap the daughters that came out to dance. If the fathers of the kidnapped daughters came to complain, the leaders planned to tell them, "it's better that they were kidnapped than that they were the spoils of the war which we could have declared on you." (Judges 21:19-22). The Benjamites did what the leaders told them to do, kidnapping an unknown number of virgin girls and God was pleased (Judges 21:23-24).

These are old books with dubious authorship - i.e., God. The problem is the theocratic basis of the state of Israel.

Mr./Ms. nude, you seem to have a major problem with "Muslim-Arabs" in all your comments. As an agnostic Asian, your comments are highly offensive and very racist. Let me address the core issue of the historical interaction between Judaism and Islam. This will require an honest to-the-point answer - not an evasive comment. During the past 20 centuries (or more), Jews have been killed (in very large numbers) in nearly every single large Christan country - e.g., Spain, France, Russia, Germany, etc. This is a documented fact - in Jewish history books. In the centuries mentioned above, was there any large-scale killing of Jews in Muslim countries?? The answer is "no" - again from documented Jewish archives and books. Related fact - during and after the Spanish inquisition, most of the Jews fled to Muslim countries - particularly to Turkey and Morocco. That again is a fact. Related fact - Hitler very publicly announced that the Jews are not welcome in Germany. He stated that they were welcome to leave Germany. Again this is a fact. In July 1938, a conference was convened in Evian, France to decide what to do about this issue - i.e., Hitler's treats and his offer of safe passage to German Jews. "I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [Jews], will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships" - Hitler, 1938. Hitler made several similar offers. Then what happened at the Evian Conference - the Christian world refused to take the Jews!!! "With both the United States and Britain refusing to take in substantial numbers of Jews, the conference was ultimately seen as a failure by Jews and their sympathizers. Most of the countries at the conference followed suit, the result being that the Jews had no escape and were ultimately subject to what was known as Hitler's "Final Solution to the Jewish Question". The conference was seen by some as "an exercise in Anglo-American collaborative hypocrisy." This is a documented fact. Reading these facts carefully leads to several related questions, as follows:-
- Why do all the comments coming from Jewish writers always have words of hate and violence against Muslims??
- In spite of being thrown out (and killed) in Christian countries, why do all the comments coming from Jewish writers express a love for Christians??
- Is there something inherently flawed about the Jews that everybody (historically speaking) seems to hate them??
- Did the Jews do anything (in various European countries) that caused hatred amongst even highly literate and sophisticated people across a whole continent?? For centuries??
- Hatred for Muslims - Is this a perverse mutation of the Stockholm syndrome?? Love of the oppressor!! Hate the down-trodden!!
- Hatred for the Muslims - Is this a perverse mutation of the Shylock syndrome?? Love of money above everything else!! Love for people (and countries) who have money!! Read European literature (from the 12th century onwards), including Shakespeare. It is full of these Jewish traits/habits - i.e., cunning, scheming, greed, lack of loyalty, etc.
- Other than the J Street movement, very few Jews can read (or comment about) history impartially. Why??
- Why are liberal Jews unable to make any difference to internal (right-wing) politics within Israel??
- Is it because the liberal Jews have decided to leave Israel and live in North America, Europe, etc.??
Your comments are welcome - but, please do not respond by giving quotations from ancient books - e.g., "promised land", "chosen people", etc. These statements cannot be verified as they are attributed to a gentleman (i.e., God) whose very existence is currently being debated. Thank you.

This thread is very interesting. To be honest, I can see the merit in the basic hypothesis - i.e., that, by design, democracies should be less trigger-happy than one party states. However, in many non-European democracies, the established status quo leads to a kind of tunnel vision with mass populist support. For example, the military interventions by the USA in various countries - the famous "either you are with us or against us" logic of George Bush and the Cold War era. Using the same logic, it seems that there are very few checks and balances within the USA to the horrendous (and disproportionate) use of force - e.g., chemical warfare in Vietnam, "shock and awe" firepower in recent wars, the use of drones in countries where officially the USA has not declared war, etc. Often these measures are taken based on "contrived" or "fabricated" information given to the voting public - e.g., WMD in Iraq. Similarly, it will be a kind of pro-Zionist mass hysteria which could lead to the bombing of Iran unilaterally by the USA - a country that is a signatory to the NP treaty. Your other point (also very interesting) is debatable - i.e., when you state that "one party states don't tend to treat countries they illegally occupy too well either". Here my own experience (i.e., personal visits) suggests that the actual "treatment" of occupied people is very varied - the key issue is the culture of the occupying forces rather than political systems. For example, the Russians occupied most of Central Asia. Those areas are independent countries now, and yet, there is still a lot of love and respect for the Russians. During my travels, the key factor stated by the local people is that the communist army was respectful, totally non-racist and had very high battlefield ethics. Conversely, democratic countries have had major problems with both racism and ethics. For example, the USA in Vietnam and elsewhere - in this context, it is worth reading the findings of the Bertrand Russell tribunal. Likewise, Israel has had an awful record in terms of a very low battlefield ethics, bordering on genocide and ethnic cleansing. In the long term, there is a strong case for creating greater military capability within multilateral organization's like the UN. I would be interested in hearing comments and views on the moral and political dimensions of these issues.

Even though the wings of hawks' Nentanyahu is clipped by the middle class Israelis in the new election, our own more than 80% Congress and Senate members are still more hawkish than the majority of Israelis. Unless these members change their minds and hearts and stand up for the truth, justice, fairness and humanity in that part of the world, Palestinians will continue to live in the apartheid, filthy, inhumane and ruthless OCCUPATION.

You are wrong - the real terrorists were the Zionists who carefully planned ethnic cleansing in Palestine. The whole plan was a colonial enterprise based on an "occupy and evict" strategy - the "founding fathers" of Israel made their colonialist aspirations very clear. Their charter was based on a few verses written 30 centuries ago. It is always a bad idea to base any constitution or charter on quotes from ancient texts whose mystery author (i.e., God) has never been seen. In my view, it is more important to read the pronouncements of the actual "policy makers" of Zionism. In this context, here are a few quotes from key members of the Zionist movement:

"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." - T. Herzl, 1885.

"...the transfer of [Palestinian] Arab population from the area of the Jewish state does not serve only one aim--to diminish the Arab population. It also serves a second, no less important, aim which is to advocate land presently held and cultivated by the [Palestinian] Arabs and thus to release it for Jewish inhabitants." Y. Weitz, 1937.

"There is no justice, no law, and no God in heaven, only a single law which decides and supersedes all---- [Jewish] settlement [of the land]." Z. Jabotinsky, 1926.

"The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has become fond of them." He later added, "Hitler--- as odious as he is to us---has given this idea a good name in the world." Z. Jabotinsky, 1940.

"This is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it should prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement .... the state, however, must enforce order and security and it will do this not by mobilizing and preaching 'sermons on the mount' but by the machine-guns, which we will need." D. Ben-Gurion, 1938.

"this is why we formulated our demand not as a Jewish state in Palestine but Palestine as a Jewish state". D. Ben-Gurion, 1942.

"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." D. Ben-Gurion, 1946.

"[Land is acquired] by force --- that is, by conquest in war, or in other words, by ROBBING land form its owner; . . . by expropriation via government authority; or by purchase. . . [The Zionist movement was limited to the third choice] until at some point we become rulers." M. Ussishkin, 1904.

"By a Jewish National Home I mean the creation of such conditions that as the country is developed we can pour in a considerable number of immigrants, and finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English or America American." C. Weizmann, 1919.

"I do not believe in the TRANSFER of an individual. I believe in the TRANSFER of entire villages." A. Ruppin, 1931.

Who are the real terrorists?? Do they teach history in schools in Israel??

In which planet do you live in?? Zionist speeches were followed by ethnic cleansing on a scale not witnessed since the 16th and 17 centuries. The issue there is eviction, ethnic cleansing and occupation of land. The Jews wanted to move from Europe to Asia. Fine. But, instead of having the humility of a guest, the Zionists adopted the arrogance of a racist colonial power. Zionists have been responsible for planned ethnic cleansing in Palestine for the past several decades. The reality is that the planned ethnic cleansing of Palestine began well before 1947 - a synopsis is given below:

"In 1947, there were 630,000 Jews and 1,300,000 Palestinian Arabs. Thus, by the time of the United Nations partition of Palestine in 1947, the Jews were 31% of the population.

The decision to partition Palestine, promoted by the leading imperialist powers and Stalin’s Soviet Union, gave 54% of the fertile land to the Zionist movement. But before the state of Israel was established, the Irgun and Haganah seized three-quarters of the land and expelled virtually all the inhabitants.

In 1948, there were 475 Palestinian villages and towns. Of these, 385 were razed to the ground, reduced to rubble. Ninety remain, stripped of their land."

"In 1940, Joseph Weitz, the head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department, which was responsible for the actual organization of settlements in Palestine, wrote:

Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left.

There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument: ... the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish ... with a non-Jewish minority limited to fifteen percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary. The Koenig Report stated this policy even more bluntly:

We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.

Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, declaimed: “We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves.”

These are the words of Uri Lubrani, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion’s special adviser on Arab Affairs, in 1960: “We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters.”

Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Armed Forces stated:

We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel ... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.

"The territorial ambitions of Zionism were clearly spelled out by David Ben Gurion in a speech to a Zionist meeting on October 13, 1936: “We do not suggest that we announce now our final aim which is far reaching – even more so than the Revisionists who oppose Partition. I am unwilling to abandon the great vision, the final vision which is an organic, spiritual and ideological component of my ... Zionist aspirations.”

In the same year, Ben Gurion wrote in a letter to his son:

A partial Jewish State is not the end, but only the beginning. I am certain that we can not be prevented from settling in the other parts of the country and the region.

In 1937, he declaimed:

“The boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.” In 1938, he was more explicit: “The boundaries of Zionist aspiration,” he told the World Council of Poale Zion in Tel Aviv, “include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today’s Jordan, all of Cis-Jordan [West Bank] and the Sinai.”

Ben Gurion formulated Zionist strategy very clearly:

After we become a strong force as the result of the creation of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine. The state will only be a stage in the realization of Zionism and its task is to prepare the ground for our expansion. The state will have to preserve order – not by preaching but with machine guns."

Planned ethnic cleansing is a war crime in international law - the victims of genocide in Europe (the Jews) have now become the practitioners of Nazi-style ethnic cleansing in Asia!!! For how long??

The Palestinians do not need to exercise the right of self-determination - they already lived in Palestine. The Jews decided to arrive in Palestine because of problems with some European countries. If you want to move from Europe to Asia. Fine. But, do so with the humility of a guest, and not the arrogance of a racist colonial power.

The reality is that the planned ethnic cleansing of Palestine began well before 1947 - a synopsis is given below:

"In 1947, there were 630,000 Jews and 1,300,000 Palestinian Arabs. Thus, by the time of the United Nations partition of Palestine in 1947, the Jews were 31% of the population.

The decision to partition Palestine, promoted by the leading imperialist powers and Stalin’s Soviet Union, gave 54% of the fertile land to the Zionist movement. But before the state of Israel was established, the Irgun and Haganah seized three-quarters of the land and expelled virtually all the inhabitants.

In 1948, there were 475 Palestinian villages and towns. Of these, 385 were razed to the ground, reduced to rubble. Ninety remain, stripped of their land."

"In 1940, Joseph Weitz, the head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department, which was responsible for the actual organization of settlements in Palestine, wrote:

Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left.

There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument: ... the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish ... with a non-Jewish minority limited to fifteen percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary.

The Koenig Report stated this policy even more bluntly:

We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.

Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, declaimed: “We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves.”

These are the words of Uri Lubrani, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion’s special adviser on Arab Affairs, in 1960: “We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters.”

Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Armed Forces stated:

We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel ... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.

Eitan elaborated before the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee:

When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do will be to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle."

"The territorial ambitions of Zionism were clearly spelled out by David Ben Gurion in a speech to a Zionist meeting on October 13, 1936: “We do not suggest that we announce now our final aim which is far reaching – even more so than the Revisionists who oppose Partition. I am unwilling to abandon the great vision, the final vision which is an organic, spiritual and ideological component of my ... Zionist aspirations.”

In the same year, Ben Gurion wrote in a letter to his son:

A partial Jewish State is not the end, but only the beginning. I am certain that we can not be prevented from settling in the other parts of the country and the region.

In 1937, he declaimed:

“The boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.” [47] In 1938, he was more explicit: “The boundaries of Zionist aspiration,” he told the World Council of Poale Zion in Tel Aviv, “include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today’s Jordan, all of Cis-Jordan [West Bank] and the Sinai.”

Ben Gurion formulated Zionist strategy very clearly:

After we become a strong force as the result of the creation of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine. The state will only be a stage in the realization of Zionism and its task is to prepare the ground for our expansion. The state will have to preserve order – not by preaching but with machine guns."